Howard v. Califano
| Decision Date | 22 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2824,78-2824 |
| Citation | 590 F.2d 137 |
| Parties | James M. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph A. CALIFANO, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William T. Moore, Jr., U. S. Atty., Henry L. Whisenhunt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Augusta, Ga., Alan M. Grochal, Atty., Dept. of H. E. W., Gen. Counsel, Baltimore, Md., Barbara Allen Babcock, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant-appellant.
William R. McCracken, Augusta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia.
Before GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH and HILL, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellee James M. Howard originally applied for disability benefits under the Social Security Act (Act) in 1964. Howard's 1964 application was denied, and he sought no administrative review of that denial.
Howard filed a second application in 1976. His 1976 application was also initially denied, but this time Howard requested and was granted a hearing on the application before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ found that Howard was entitled to a period of disability commencing from December of 1963. However, the ALJ also concluded that under the appropriate "reopening regulations," 20 C.F.R. § 404.957, he could not reopen Howard's 1964 application. Accordingly, the ALJ found that since the disability benefits had to be based on Howard's 1976 application, they would be affected by the statutory limitation on retroactive benefits. See 42 U.S.C. § 423(b) (1976). The appeals Council, and through it the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, affirmed the decision of the ALJ.
Howard then brought action in federal district court seeking review of this final decision of Secretary. Specifically, Howard complained of the Secretary's refusal to reopen his 1964 application. The district court remanded the case to the Secretary for findings on the question of whether Howard's mental condition should have tolled the application of the reopening regulations. See Torres v. Secretary of HEW, 475 F.2d 466 (1st Cir. 1973). The Secretary now appeals from the district court decision.
The action brought by Howard in federal district court is an action seeking review of the Secretary's refusal to reopen an application for disability benefits. See Ortego v. Weinberger, 516 F.2d 1005 (5th Cir. 1975). Although at one time these refusals by the Secretary were considered reviewable, E. g., Ortego v. Weinberger, 516 F.2d 1005 (5th Cir. 1975), the Supreme Court has recently made clear that the contrary is the case. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed. 192 (1977). In Sanders the Supreme Court held that the Act precludes review of the Secretary's refusal to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shrader v. Harris
...ex parte denial of his 1974 pro se claim is res judicata deprived him of a property interest without due process of law. Howard v. Califano, 590 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1979), and Matos v. Secretary, 581 F.2d 282 (1st Cir. 1978), on which the government relies, do not require a different result.......
-
Green v. Astrue
...refusal is challenged on constitutional grounds.'" Cherry v. Heckler, 760 F2d 1186, 1189 (11th Cir. 1985), quoting Howard v. Califano, 590 F2d 137, 138 (5th Cir.1979); see Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980 51 L.Ed2d 192 (1977). Accordingly, this court cannot review the ALJ's de......
-
Yarbrough ex rel. Yarbrough v. Carolyn W. Colvin Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-230-EWD
...for disability benefits is subject to judicial review if "that refusal is challenged on constitutional grounds." Howard v. Califano, 590 F.2d 137, 138 (5th Cir. 1979) (citing Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980); See, Atwell v. Commissioner of Social Sec. Admin., CIV.A. No. 13-64-JWD-RLB, 20......
-
Cherry v. Heckler
...application is not subject to judicial review "unless that refusal is challenged on constitutional grounds." Howard v. Califano, 590 F.2d 137, 138 (5th Cir.1979) (per curiam); 1 see Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 97 S.Ct. 980, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977). The grounds alleged must be "colorable......